Dataset Information

Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To simulate possible changes in systematic review results if rapid review methods were used. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:We recalculated meta-analyses for binary primary outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews, simulating rapid review methods. We simulated searching only PubMed, excluding older articles (5, 7, 10, 15, and 20 years before the search date), excluding smaller trials (<50, <100, and <200 participants), and using the largest trial only. We examined percentage changes in pooled odds ratios (ORs) (classed as no important change [<5%], small [<20%], moderate [<30%], or large [?30%]), statistical significance, and biases observed using rapid methods. RESULTS:Two thousand five hundred and twelve systematic reviews (16,088 studies) were included. Rapid methods resulted in the loss of all data in 3.7-44.7% of meta-analyses. Searching only PubMed had the smallest risk of changed ORs (19% [477/2,512] were small changes or greater; 10% [260/2,512] were moderate or greater). Changes in ORs varied substantially with each rapid review method; 8.4-21.3% were small, 1.9-8.8% were moderate, and 4.7-34.1% were large. Changes in statistical significance occurred in 6.5-38.6% of meta-analyses. Changes from significant to nonsignificant were most common (2.1-13.7% meta-analyses). We found no evidence of bias with any rapid review method. CONCLUSION:Searching PubMed only might be considered where a ?10% risk of the primary outcome OR changing by >20% could be tolerated. This could be the case in scoping reviews, resource limitation, or where syntheses are needed urgently. Other situations, such as clinical guidelines and regulatory decisions, favor more comprehensive systematic review methods.

SUBMITTER: Marshall IJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6524137 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study.

Marshall Iain J IJ Marshall Rachel R Wallace Byron C BC Brassey Jon J Thomas James J

Journal of clinical epidemiology 20181225

<h4>Objective</h4>To simulate possible changes in systematic review results if rapid review methods were used.<h4>Study design and setting</h4>We recalculated meta-analyses for binary primary outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews, simulating rapid review methods. We simulated searching only PubMed, excluding older articles (5, 7, 10, 15, and 20 years before the search date), excluding smaller trials (<50, <100, and <200 participants), and using the largest trial only. We examined percentage ch ...[more]

PMID: 30590190

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rationale, aims, and objectivesCOVID-19 has caused an ongoing public health crisis. Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been performed to synthesize evidence for better understanding this new disease. However, some concerns have been raised about rapid COVID-19 research. This meta-epidemiological study aims to methodologically assess the current systematic reviews and meta-analyses on COVID-19.MethodsWe searched in various databases for systematic reviews with meta-analyses published between 1 January 2020 and 31 October 2020. We extracted their basic characteristics, data analyses, evidence appraisal, and assessment of publication bias and heterogeneity.ResultsWe identified 295 systematic reviews on COVID-19. The median time from submission to acceptance was 33 days. Among these systematic reviews, 73.9% evaluated clinical manifestations or comorbidities of COVID-19. Stata was the most used software programme (43.39%). The odds ratio was the most used effect measure (34.24%). Moreover, 28.14% of the systematic reviews did not present evidence appraisal. Among those reporting the risk of bias results, 14.64% of studies had a high risk of bias. Egger's test was the most used method for assessing publication bias (38.31%), while 38.66% of the systematic reviews did not assess publication bias. The I2 statistic was widely used for assessing heterogeneity (92.20%); many meta-analyses had high values of I2 . Among the meta-analyses using the random-effects model, 75.82% did not report the methods for model implementation; among those meta-analyses reporting implementation methods, the DerSimonian-Laird method was the most used one.ConclusionsThe current systematic reviews and meta-analyses on COVID-19 might suffer from low transparency, high heterogeneity, and suboptimal statistical methods. It is recommended that future systematic reviews on COVID-19 strictly follow well-developed guidelines. Sensitivity analyses may be performed to examine how the synthesized evidence might depend on different methods for appraising evidence, assessing publication bias, and implementing meta-analysis models.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Information on subgroup assessments in systematic reviews (SR) of atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited. This review aims to describe subgroup analyses in AF SRs to inform the design of SRs and randomized trials as well as clinical practice. METHODS:We conducted a cross sectional meta-epidemiological study of Cochrane AF reviews by searching AF (including variants) in the title, abstract, or keyword field without date or language restrictions (Issue 9; September 2018). Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics to summarize frequency of subgroups pre-specified and conducted and report credibility of subgroup effects claimed. RESULTS:Of 39 Cochrane reviews identified, 17 met inclusion criteria (including 168 reports of 127 randomized trials) and the majority (16; 94.1%) conducted meta-analysis of outcomes. Most (13; 76.5%) planned pre-specified subgroup analyses; 7 of which (41.2%) conducted subgroups. In these 7 reviews, 56 subgroups were planned, 17 (30.4%) conducted and 6 (10.7%) yielded subgroup effects. Variables such as co-morbid disease, stroke risk factors, prior stroke/transient ischemic attack, age, race, and sex represented 44% (24 subgroups) of all planned subgroups (8 conducted; 14.3%); however, information on covariate selection was lacking. Overall, more subgroups were planned than conducted (mean difference (95% CI) 2.3 (1.2-3.5, p?<?0.001)). Of all subgroups conducted, anticoagulant characteristics comprised a third of all subgroup effects (n?=?5, 35.7%). The credibility of subgroups identified (n?=?14) was assessed and less than half (43%) represented one of a small number of pre-specified hypothesis and rarely were effects seen within studies (7%). Of 5 reviews that reported subgroup effects, only 3 discussed subgroup effects as part of the overall conclusions; none discussed credibility of subgroup effects. CONCLUSIONS:This meta-epidemiological review of a subset of Cochrane AF reviews suggests that planning and reporting of subgroup analyses in AF reviews can be improved to better inform clinical management. Most pre-specified subgroup analyses were not performed, important variables (such as stroke, bleeding risk, and other comorbidities) were rarely examined and credibility of subgroup effects claimed was low. Future reviews should aim to identify important subgroups in their protocols and use recommended approaches to test subgroup effects in order to better support clinical decision-making.

Project description:Background: We sought to investigate the methodological and reporting quality of published systematic reviews describing randomized controlled trials in type 2 diabetes mellitus and analyze their association with status of protocol registration. Methods: We searched the PubMed database and identified non-Cochrane systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, reporting on type 2 diabetes mellitus and published between 2005 and 2018. We then randomly selected 20% of these reviews in each year, and performed methodological and reporting quality assessment using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review 2 (AMSTAR-2) checklist and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. We also conducted regression analyses to explore the association between characteristics of systematic reviews and AMSTAR-2 or PRISMA scores. Results: A total of 238 systematic reviews, including 33 registered and 205 non-registered articles, met the inclusion criteria and were subsequently reviewed. Analysis indicated an increase in both registered rates and quality of systematic reviews in type 2 diabetes mellitus over the recent years. With regards to methodological and reporting quality, we found higher scores in registered, relative to non-registered reviews (AMSTAR-2 mean score: 18.0 vs. 14.5, P = 0.000; PRISMA mean score: 20.4 vs. 17.6, P = 0.000). AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA scores were associated with registration status, country of the first author, and statistical results, whereas the proportion of discussing publication bias and reporting funding sources were <40% for both registered and non-registered systematic reviews. Conclusions: Methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in type 2 diabetes mellitus indicates an improvement in the recent years. However, the overall quality remains low, necessitating further improvement. Future studies are expected to pay more attention to prospective registration, description of publication bias and reporting of funding sources.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is growing interest in evaluating differences in healthcare interventions across routinely collected demographic characteristics. However, individual subgroup analyses in randomized controlled trials are often not prespecified, adjusted for multiple testing, or conducted using the appropriate statistical test for interaction, and therefore frequently lack credibility. Meta-analyses can be used to examine the validity of potential subgroup differences by collating evidence across trials. Here, we characterize the conduct and clinical translation of age-treatment subgroup analyses in Cochrane reviews. METHODS:For a random sample of 928 Cochrane intervention reviews of randomized trials, we determined how often subgroup analyses of age are reported, how often these analyses have a P?<?0.05 from formal interaction testing, how frequently subgroup differences first observed in an individual trial are later corroborated by other trials in the same meta-analysis, and how often statistically significant results are included in commonly used clinical management resources (BMJ Best Practice, UpToDate, Cochrane Clinical Answers, Google Scholar, and Google search). RESULTS:Among 928 Cochrane intervention reviews, 189 (20.4%) included plans to conduct age-treatment subgroup analyses. The vast majority (162 of 189, 85.7%) of the planned analyses were not conducted, commonly because of insufficient trial data. There were 22 reviews that conducted their planned age-treatment subgroup analyses, and another 3 reviews appeared to perform unplanned age-treatment subgroup analyses. These 25 (25 of 928, 2.7%) reviews conducted a total of 97 age-treatment subgroup analyses, of which 65 analyses (in 20 reviews) had non-overlapping subgroup levels. Among the 65 age-treatment subgroup analyses, 14 (21.5%) did not report any formal interaction testing. Seven (10.8%) reported P?<?0.05 from formal age-treatment interaction testing; however, none of these seven analyses were in reviews that discussed the potential biological rationale or clinical significance of the subgroup findings or had results that were included in common clinical practice resources. CONCLUSION:Age-treatment subgroup analyses in Cochrane intervention reviews were frequently planned but rarely conducted, and implications of detected interactions were not discussed in the reviews or mentioned in common clinical resources. When subgroup analyses are performed, authors should report the findings, compare the results to previous studies, and outline any potential impact on clinical care.

Project description:BackgroundPolicy makers and others often require synthesis of knowledge in an area within six months or less. Traditional systematic reviews typically take at least 12 months to conduct. Rapid reviews streamline traditional systematic review methods in order to synthesize evidence within a shortened timeframe. There is great variation in the process of conducting rapid reviews. This review sought to examine methods used for rapid reviews, as well as implications of methodological streamlining in terms of rigour, bias, and results.MethodsA comprehensive search strategy--including five electronic databases, grey literature, hand searching of relevant journals, and contacting key informants--was undertaken. All titles and abstracts (n = 1,989) were reviewed independently by two reviewers. Relevance criteria included articles published between 1995 and 2009 about conducting rapid reviews or addressing comparisons of rapid reviews versus traditional reviews. Full articles were retrieved for any titles deemed relevant by either reviewer (n = 70). Data were extracted from all relevant methodological articles (n = 45) and from exemplars of rapid review methods (n = 25).ResultsRapid reviews varied from three weeks to six months; various methods for speeding up the process were employed. Some limited searching by years, databases, language, and sources beyond electronic searches. Several employed one reviewer for title and abstract reviewing, full text review, methodological quality assessment, and/or data extraction phases. Within rapid review studies, accelerating the data extraction process may lead to missing some relevant information. Biases may be introduced due to shortened timeframes for literature searching, article retrieval, and appraisal.ConclusionsThis review examined the continuum between diverse rapid review methods and traditional systematic reviews. It also examines potential implications of streamlined review methods. More of these rapid reviews need to be published in the peer-reviewed literature with an emphasis on articulating methods employed. While one consistent methodological approach may not be optimal or appropriate, it is important that researchers undertaking reviews within the rapid to systematic continuum provide detailed descriptions of methods used and discuss the implications of their chosen methods in terms of potential bias introduced. Further research comparing full systematic reviews with rapid reviews will enhance understanding of the limitations of these methods.

Dataset Information

Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study.

Publications

Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets